19 June 2016 2:28 AM

PETER HITCHENS: There's a faint chance we may get our nation back one day...

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column

The part of the referendum campaign that has angered me most is this: the suggestion, repeatedly made by pro-EU persons, that there is something narrow, mean and small-minded about wanting to live in an independent country that makes its own laws and controls its own borders.I can think of no other country where the elite are so hostile to their own nation, and so contemptuous of it.I have spent many years trying to work out why this is. I think it is because Britain – the great, free, gentle country it once was and might be again – disproves all their theories.Most of our governing class, especially in the media, politics and the law, is still enslaved by 1960s ideals that have been discredited everywhere they have been tried.These are themselves modified versions of the communist notions that first took hold here in the 1930s. But the things they claim to want – personal liberty, freedom of conscience, clean government, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, a compassionate state, a safety net through which none can fall, and a ladder that all can climb – existed here without any of these airy dogmas.How annoying that an ancient monarchy, encrusted with tradition, Christian in nature, enforced by hanging judges in red robes, had come so much closer to an ideal society than Trotsky or Castro ever did or ever could.The contradiction made the radicals’ brains fizz and sputter. How could this be? If it was so, they were wrong. Utopians, as George Orwell demonstrated, prefer their visions to reality or truth. Two and two must be made to make five, if it suits them. So, rather than allow their hearts to lift at the sight of such a success as Britain was, and ashamed to be patriots, they set out to destroy the living proof that they were wrong.They took a hammer to our intricate constitution. They dissolved the best state secondary schools in the world and then attacked the best universities in the world for refusing to lower their standards too.They dismantled the most relaxed and generous union of neighbouring nations ever seen in the history of the world.And while they did this, they moved our landmarks, such as our unique coinage and a human, poetic system of weights and measures, polished in use. They replaced the advanced world’s only unarmed police force with a baseball-capped, scowling gendarmerie festooned with guns, clubs and gas canisters.They presided over a systematic forgetting of our national literature, so that a land where every ploughboy once knew the King James Bible is now full of people to whom the works of Shakespeare, Bunyan, Dickens, Wordsworth and Tennyson may as well be written in Martian.They declared themselves ‘Europeans’. They regarded this as superior to their own country. ‘How modern! How efficient!’ they trilled. I have heard them do it. They did not notice that the EU was also a secretive, distant and unresponsive monolith, hostile or indifferent to the freedoms we had so carefully created and so doggedly preserved.They failed to see that its ‘parliament’ does not even have an opposition, that its executive is accountable to nobody. They inherited jury trial, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights – the greatest guarantees of human freedom on the planet – and they traded in this solid gold for the worthless paper currency of human rights.If they win on Thursday, the process of abolishing Britain will be complete. If they lose, as I hope they do and still think they will, there is a faint, slender chance that we may get our country back one day.

Random horror of mental illness

I would not dream of exploiting the untimely death of a young mother for political purposes. I am grieved for all those who loved Jo Cox, and are desolated by her death. I extend my sympathy to them.But I have the strong sense that others do seek to turn this event into propaganda for a cause. It has happened very swiftly. It needs to cease. And to counter it I shall need to say some things I would normally have waited some time to say, as I would prefer to have more evidence than I now have. This consideration does not seem to bother those whom I criticise.The suggestion has been made that Mrs Cox died because of her views on the EU. The implication is that those with different views are in some way to blame for her death. We should scornfully reject this insinuation. Nobody on any side in the EU debate wishes any opponent dead. In this country, no cause is served by violence and no rational person believes that it is. Political murder is not common here, and in modern times has usually been the calculated and vengeful work of Irish criminal terror gangs.What is regrettably common is the random killing of innocent people by the mentally ill. Numbers vary and can be calculated in many different ways, but even The Guardian accepts that in 2010 there were 40 such killings across the UK, carried out by patients with mental-health problems. In 2005, there were 92. In the decade 2001-2010 there were 738 by one calculation, or 1,216 by another. People going about their daily business are pushed under trains, stabbed, kicked to death, even beheaded by unhinged assailants, who have suddenly and unpredictably become violent. Many of these killers are known by the authorities to be ill but still allowed to walk the streets, because dozens of mental hospitals have been shut to save money. Some of them have become ill following long-term use of cannabis, now decriminalised in all but name. A long-overdue reversal of these foolish policies would be a better cause than trying to take partisan advantage of a human tragedy.Disturbed people do sometimes embrace the wilder political and religious creeds. But it is their mental illness, not these barely understood ‘opinions’, that makes them capable of the dreadful act of killing – an act which separates them from the rest of humanity. The alleged killer, Thomas Mair, is said by neighbours to have a history of mental illness. By his own account it seems likely that he has taken some sort of medication at some stage. He is said by his family to have had no interest in politics. Let us leave Jo Cox’s family and friends to mourn. And let us all listen carefully to the evidence when it is, eventually, placed before the courts.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Unfortunately not ... for instance, they argue that where foodstuff is concerned African countries should have easier access to the market within the EU.
A "free market" argument which might be ok in theory -- but the reality, pretty much inevitable under the present economic system, would be one of too much food getting exported instead of being available (and affordable) for consumption by the more localised population.

That's not the same as "fair trade", of which I approve; although I do wonder whether the content-percentage which qualifies for that label (advantageous in marketing) should be set a bit higher.

pace Colin Broughton
Yes, well, I think I do understand Orwell, and in my eccentric career I have had plenty of experience of gentle treatment from a range of English men and women: teachers, whose instructions I ignored, landowners, whose lands I wandered over, university authorities, which allowed me to attend months of lectures while registered elsewhere, long-suffering employers, etc.

Where we differ is regarding your romantic notion of the English being “tough when they thought it necessary…” The English, like anyone else, are at their most violent when in extremis, when thought ends and gut reactions kick in: brutal suppression of rebellions, arbitrary policing and torture, disasterous military interventions, carpet bombing, neglect and famine. You have to admit, we’ve had our fair share.

“If a people isn’t gentle within itself, it is unlikely to be gentle with anyone else...” Very true, and the unwitting destruction of the Middle East, for example, was brought about by the same people who sent people to slave in coal mines (Orwell again) and who turn a blind eye to sink estates.

Henry L'Plattenier
Who said all refugees should be treated as criminals? I am not saying that at all.
Not all those coming through Europe are refugees, some are economic migrants. There is a large mix. There have been issues within that mix including refugees, in Cologne, in the detention centres and in Calais and that is cause for concern.
As I have written, a young male fom one of the hand picked from a refugee camp is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 14 year old and Newsnight was questioning if this
would have an effect on this decision of taking Syrian refugees from camps in the future.
It is reasonable to question criminality, sexual attacks, etc.and it's future impacts here.
Security must be an issue and criminality addressed. Certainly if security checks in the camps seems to be allegedly questionable.
Within large numbers, it is reasonable to question criminality and different cultural attitudes to women, which has been well reported.
That is not saying all refugees are criminal and that is not what I said. Nor do I believe that there can never be criminality, in these numbers either.

Just a quick post here (I expect there will be a new thread concerning the Brexit victory shortly) to say a few words.
The result does not really surprise me as living in the midst of one of our historic industrial areas, I'm well aware of the present mood of The North (and other areas) where life started to change half a century ago, and the speed of that change has built up considerably in the last decade. Cameron, in particular, politicians in general, and the ever-increasing wealth and greed that is generally associated with London and the South-East has been a target for a mighty kick up the bum for an awful lot of folk who feel they have been the target for far too long.

Should yesterday's vote indicate a fairer split of the country's wealth, I would bake my own hat and eat it with relish! Sadly, I think any recovery will take years and, even then, the present 'losers' will still be at the back of the queue.

If I may say so, you seem to be missing the point about Orwell’s remarks about the gentleness of English civilisation.

He is not saying the English are saints (who is), or talking about how ‘gentlemen’ behave, or what not. He is talking about how ordinary English people are or were with each other in their everyday lives.

This is at least partly in comparison with the behaviour of people in other societies. This is clear from his remark that one notices English gentleness ‘the instant you set foot on English soil’; ie from abroad. He had of course been to Spain and France and been a policeman in India.

If a people isn’t gentle within itself, it is unlikely to be gentle with anyone else, while conversely if it is gentle, it likely to be so with others. Just consider how other peoples, including the Irish whom you mention, were behaving towards each other at the time Orwell’s essay was published (1941). That’s not to say that the English could not be tough when they thought it necessary. The way they militarised themselves during WW2 is proof of that.

The gentle flavour of life in England that Orwell talked about has been eroding over my lifetime. This is due to a number of linked factors which have greatly undermined assumptions of behaviour and so social trust.

One is the corrosion of extreme individualism which is the celebration and justification of selfishness and self-centredness. Another is the decline in the grip of Christianity and of Christian morality. And a third is mass immigration and the multicultural agenda.

How can you trust people when you have no idea what their personal ethics are or if you know that those ethics involve being hostile or indifferent to people like yourself?

Henry L'Eplattenier | 23 June 2016 at 01:31 PM :
*** - Yes, what will happen indeed? Will all the very vocal xenophobes who have been calling for more control over the borders insist on yet higher fences in Calais? and yet more guard dogs? and yet more police patrols on the beaches in France and the UK? Surely it should be obvious to all that fences and walls are not the solution. We seem to be able to see how wrong it is when Donald Trump suggests it but not when it is much closer to home... ***

Acquire and read the psychologically analytical "Camp of the Saints" -- you might then begin to realise just how deluded a mindset you presently have.
The EU and left/liberals in general seem to regard even more 'free trade' as the way to help third-world countries.
But it wouldn't. It certainly could harm those in lower paid jobs in the West, and it probably would further enrich the already factcat strata within the non-western States -- and unless you subscribe to the discredited theory of trickle-down, that would be as far as it went. The home market abandoned in favour of exporting, with peasant farmers dispossessed or killed to make way for transnational agri-business. Populations made liable for massive and irredeemable debts pertaining to that 'development' process, which serves only the few ... IMF insistence on privatisation and sale to foreign vultures of whatever national assets exist.
Entrapment and debt-enslavement of entire countries, that's the future reality behind the bleeding-heart (vampire) agenda of Western political correcters.
With regard to mass movement of people from the third-world, that and ever growing hell-hole city slums are inevitable consequences of such corporate-driven economic imperialism ... for the most unlucky, there's a Neocon strategy known as 'creative destruction' as well.
The knock-on effect within Western societies is likewise to transnational corporate advantage ... lowering of pay and conditions thanks to the influx, artificially generated shortages, serious dilution or eradication of national and regional identities ... and an economic treadmill of forced perpetual growth.
Undifferentiated global mud -- that's what Sutherland of the UN wants, that's what transnational corporate crud-shovellers and their marketing gurus want, that's what the bought Establishment politicians, anti-national 'left' and liberal type want.
All smug exploiters together, and all self-righteously indifferent about how much suffering and devastation their agendas inflict, anywhere.
Surely you would not want to be associated with such brutal exploitation?

Henry L'Eplattenier
I do not think the leaving off the EU by the UK if that occurs , should have any impact on the immigration issue ,I do not think that it should be dealt with by the EU in any case . The Issue of immigration is surely a task for the UN (more initials) would you not agree , the duplication of effort could be hindering not helping the immigrants.
As communications are better than ever , the incident of the chap who walked through the channel tunnel and was given almost immediate asylum in the UK , can only strengthen the resolve of similar people who see this happen and do the same .
Returning him straight away to the safe country he came from , France is acceptable under various rules is it not ? This may discourage others , lauding them as if they have just conquered Everest does not help . I am not xenophobic , rascist or any of that rubbish . The UK Government tells us every day we are on our uppers , no money for X, Y , Z . so how is it sensible to allow more people in ?

to Louiseyvette,
My point is firstly that I don't think England can be described as having been gentle because the gentleness did not extend far. The second point is related: The reason why it did not extend far is that it was not practicable in many situations.

Doing good (like doing bad) will lead to conflict and pain, even on a small scale. Try giving a homeless man room in your house, or try taking the mentally disturbed under your wing, or helping prostitutes escape from their desperate lives, and this becomes clear. Doing right will bring us pain, but also there will be a need for conflict, i.e. for taking measures that will cause pain to opponents. Both elements are correspondingly greater in the arena of political action.

In short, perhaps we should not be nostalgic for a supposedly gentler England (or Australia) in any case. I am all for Peter Hitchen's call for a more moral society, but do not favour (nor do I think possible) a return to past ways.

David Taylor writes: "Something is happening , a mass movement of people to Europe , from wars , famine , or simply with the improvement of communications , of all types , people will not sit in a country that is still behind the times . When a firmer line is needed from european governments to halt or delay this movement of people , to stop them drowning or being exploited at least , or provide targetted aid or assistance in these countries there is none forthcoming . "

- Migration of people from the Middle east and Africa is a modern reality. It will not stop unless the causes (war, rising inequality, climate change) are addressed and there is not going to be a rapid solution. Therefore measures have to be taken to deal with the problem, such as creating more legal routes of immigration, in order to prevent smugglers from taking advantage of vulnerable migrants and prevent the tragic deaths that we are witnessing. This requires wide international cooperation and I agree with you that the response from the EU so far has been very disappointing. But that is in my view precisely a good reason why the UK should stay in the EU. If the UK leaves the EU it will for sure negatively impact such efforts.

David Taylor writes: "What will happen when drowned children are being washed up in Broadstairs or Lyme Regis ?"

- Yes, what will happen indeed? Will all the very vocal xenophobes who have been calling for more control over the borders insist on yet higher fences in Calais? and yet more guard dogs? and yet more police patrols on the beaches in France and the UK? Surely it should be obvious to all that fences and walls are not the solution. We seem to be able to see how wrong it is when Donald Trump suggests it but not when it is much closer to home...

Mrs B writes: "Are you saying that no refugee will ever commit a crime?"

- No. What I am saying is that criminals should be treated and punished like criminals and refugees should be treated like refugees. What I am protesting against is the idea that refugees should be treated as if they are criminals.

Henry L'Eplattenier
Sorry mate , it should read being in the EU is not solely the cause of immigration , the EU does not help , then the rest of my comment .
Alan Thomas , left some beer suggestions on the other thread .

How is it going to make a difference leaving?
Because politicians will have to sit up and take note that since they allowed, or rather Labour allowed it and then the Cons and Coalition with Liberals have had no political will to do anything positive for it's own people at all on stopping the strain on many communities.
By the way this magic migrant impact fund they keep talking about, they just don't get it. It's not money high areas need it's less people.
Our areas are growing too big. We don't want to keep seeing them expand with all the congestion and numbers and pressure and yes, our traditonal feel going.
Us locals know that money is going out of the country to support families where migrants come from. The rise in money transfer notices in shops and post offices.
We haven't had control. We wouldn't know what it looked like.
If there is control why am I seeing such a dramtic change over the last few years, compared even to 2000's especially the last two where I live.
The politicians and elites can tell us we have control, but they can't stop us seeing what is happening. They are taking us for fools.

"But by all means, don't let such small factual details get in the way of your prejudices..." Posted by: Henry L'Eplattenier | 21 June 2016 at 08:28 PM

"Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one's opponent" is No.38 of "Thirty-eight dishonest tricks which are commonly used in argument" - Robert H Thouless, 'Straight and Crooked Thinking' (1930, 1953 & 1960).

Peter Starr, I often wonder if the very gentleness of most of society at that time (I'm pretty sure it was similar in Australia when my mother was growing up 40s & 50s) is the very reason the social revolutionaries were so successful.

I did have a question about this: "The emphasis on gentleness, which Orwell recognized in the English way of life, does not correspond to life in the real world, and this is why it fails to convince."

Did Orwell not live in the real world? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Henry L'Eplattenier
I was responding to your comment that a visa is needed to enter the UK .
Not about the EU .
The border will remain at calais in the event of a leave majority , unless the French Gov renege on the agreement that was made , that agreement is nothing to do with the EU .
I agree , slowing or controlling immigration is not solely caused by being in the EU or because of the existence of the EU .
Something is happening , a mass movement of people to Europe , from wars , famine , or simply with the improvement of communications , of all types , people will not sit in a country that is still behind the times . When a firmer line is needed from european governments to halt or delay this movement of people , to stop them drowning or being exploited at least , or provide targetted aid or assistance in these countries there is none forthcoming .
What will happen when drowned children are being washed up in Broadstairs or Lyme Regis ?

Well, it could, but it might take some time. We're not the only ones suffering a flood, indeed, for some the water is far deeper and even murkier. But I'd be quite surprised if the rules of the game were not revised considerable... and possibly before we've finally waved our sailor's farewell should the vote go that way.

I was responding to ian guthrie's comment 20th June 2016 at 10.30 PM, that seems to have a rosy view of things and doesn't quite fit with attacks on New Year's Eve in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe. Well documented in the press.
Are you saying that no refugee will ever commit a crime?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.